By Albert Samaha
By Darwin BondGraham
By Keegan Hamilton
By Anna Merlan
By Anna Merlan
By Tessa Stuart
By Tessa Stuart
By Albert Samaha
Last week, you could hear lots of honking and yelling on the road to Contentville, the new Web site that sells books, magazine subscriptions, and collected news articles, inviting its readers to "rejoice." But this was a case of road ragewith an angry phalanx of writers, from ph.D. Scholars to Harper's contributors, accusing contentville of selling their work without asking permission. The complaints first surfaced on Jim Romenesko's Web site, with many demanding that their content be taken down immediately.
On July 19, Contentville founder Steve Brill took the time-honored step of e-mailing Romenesko, braying his commitment to "decent ethics" and his intention to work out a deal with the National Writers Union whereby freelance authors could be paid royalties. Meanwhile, Contentville reassured writers of its legal standing, and by the end of the day, MSNBC.com posted a story declaring Brill's hawking of Ph.D. dissertations to be "all perfectly legal."
Steve Brill's experiment is only a few weeks old, and at least one publishing company has accused him of stealing its intellectual property.
MSNBC's snap judgment was a little suspect, given that Microsoft and NBC are partners in Contentville. (No mention of this in the story.) But forget the conflicts of interest, and forget the little people who felt violated by the media watchdog. Brill's experiment is only a few weeks old, and at least one publishing company has accused him of stealing its intellectual property.
"How the hell did they get our archives?" fumed David Schneiderman, CEO of Village Voice Media, upon learning that Contentville is selling hundreds of Voicearticles, including the work of Michael Musto and Nat Hentoff along with that of scores of freelancers who retain the rights to their work. Individual articles are going for $2.95 a pop, prompting Schneiderman to ask, "Why should we let Contentville sell this stuff to readers who can get it on our Web site for free?"
On July 21, upon learning that an obscure company called EBSCO holds the right to market Voicearchives to libraries, the Voicelawyer fired off a letter to Brill, claiming that EBSCO's 1994 contract with the Voicewas intended for educational and research purposes, and that the contract was rendered void by the sale of the Voiceearlier this year. She requested that Brill remove "any Village Voicematerial" at once.
EBSCO Publishing, based in Ipswich, Massachusetts, is a Contentville partner, along with NBC, CBS, Microsoft, and so on. In addition to selling magazine subscriptions, EBSCO has traditionally been a middleman, licensing content from hundreds of publishers to build electronic databases and offering those archives to libraries by subscription. By getting EBSCO out of the library, Brill has created a kind of poor man's Nexis, giving anyone with Internet access and a credit card the means to do quickie research. (Contentville has no connection to Lexis-Nexis, which charges high rates for a superior service.)
Despite the questions, Brill is confident that everything's on the up-and-up. "EBSCO guarantees the validity of third-party contracts," he said in an interview last week. "They're selling all this stuff now and they've been selling it for 10 years to libraries. Our due diligence was, they told us we have the right to sell this to you."
However, due to a lack of transparency on the site, the provenance of the Contentville archives remained a mystery last week. From The New Republicto U.S. News & World Reportto Adoptive Familiesmagazine, few seemed to know how Contentville had acquired their content.
"I was not aware that EBSCO was licensing our content to Contentville," said John Lerner, vice president and general manager of VNU eMedia, whose stable includes MediaWeek, AdWeek, BrandWeek, and Editor & Publisher. Lerner says that at this point, he doesn't know whether EBSCO is acting within its rights.
A source at the Christian Science Monitorsaid that on first glance, Contentville's use of the paper's archives appeared to be valid under an EBSCO contract and under the paper's standard freelance contract, which assigns nonexclusive electronic rights to the Monitor. According to the source, the Monitorgoes out of its way to respect freelancers' rights because it is owned by the First Church of Christ, Scientist, whose purpose is "to injure no man, but to bless all mankind."
If only the same could be said of Steve Brill. Brill says his site has made "direct contact" with major media companies to secure explicit permission to market their archives. Condé Nast turned him down, but Mort Zuckerman, who owns U.S. News & World Report, said yes. Contentville is currently negotiating a deal with Time Inc. that would allow the new site to sell articles from Timeand Fortune. Harper's now says a legitimate EBSCO contract exists.
Brill says his people approached The New York Timesdirectly, and a spokesperson for New York Times Digital confirms that the paper has a "distribution arrangement" that lets Contentville sell articles from the last 365 days of its archives. (The archives of other major papers, such as The Washington Postand the Los Angeles Times, are not being sold on the site.)
Tim Collins, general manager of EBSCO Publishing, declined to comment on whether EBSCO is exposed to contract disputes. When asked how publishers were informed that EBSCO planned to market their archives via Contentville, he said EBSCO notified more than 100 companies in its quarterly newsletter, which was sent out with the two most recent royalty checks in 2000. Asked if he considers that sufficient notice, he said, "EBSCO could have done better."